Why create a new term to define something that has already been defined?
That makes sense. I'm ok with FSYNC.
Anton, I don't understand why we should rename LOG_ONLY to SYNC. We started
this discussion with bad naming of DEFAULT, but this has nothing to do with
LOG_ONLY (even though it may be scientific - but SYNC sounds scientific as
well).
Best Regards,
Ivan Rakov
On 16.02.2018 15:55, Anton Vinogradov wrote:
>> I had idea to name old default as FSYNC, but it would be too scientific.
So, then it can be FSYNC, SYNC, BACKGROUND and NONE!
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>
wrote:
I had idea to name old default as FSYNC, but it would be too scientific.
I like FSYNC, I do not think it is too scientific. Definitely not more
scientific than LOG_ONLY.
For old DEFAULT, STRICT or STRICT_SYNC - IMO are best options, so I agree
with Ivan.
Not sure I like STRICT. In Linux world, fsync is a well known command which
does exactly what our FSYNC mode will do:
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/fsync.2.html . STRICT, on the other
hand, is not a commonly understood term. Why create a new term to define
something that has already been defined?
Also, what if tomorrow we need to add an even stricter parameter? Then we
are back to the same problem we are trying to fix right now.
D.
